Sprewell Back With the Warriors / Arbitrator reduces his suspension

Published 4:00 am, Thursday, March 5, 1998

As the result of a surprising arbitration decision handed down yesterday, former Warrior Latrell Sprewell is no longer a former Warrior.

Sprewell, who attacked Warriors head coach P.J. Carlesimo during practice December 1, had his contract with the team reinstated in the decision by arbitrator John Feerick, the Fordham University Law School dean who heard the grievance filed by Sprewell and the NBA Players Association.

The Warriors had terminated the remainder of Sprewell's contract, worth $23.7 million, on December 3. The following day, the NBA suspended Sprewell for one calendar year.

In his decision, which is binding according to the collective bargaining agreement between the NBA and the players union, Feerick also reduced the NBA suspension, allowing Sprewell to be reinstated on July 1, rather than December 3. The regular season ends April 19 and the playoffs in mid- June. Still, the penalty by the league remains the longest handed out for a nondrug-related offense, 68 games, and Sprewell loses the $6.4 million he was owed for the rest of this season.

Feerick stated in the decision that the unprecedented joint penalties by the NBA and the Warriors are excessive and speak "to the issue of fairness."

Warriors owner Chris Cohan, speaking for the first time publicly about the incident, said the team was "more than a little disappointed. We were shocked at the decision. . . . The bottom line is, we made the right decision in December, and we stand by that decision."

Added team General Manager Garry St. Jean, "We as the Golden State Warriors family believe three months ago, two months ago, one month ago, we did the right thing. We morally and ethically believe that this was the right thing to do."

Feerick -- in a 106-page decision -- ruled that Sprewell's return to the practice court 15 to 20 minutes after trying to choke Carlesimo that day, "which was grievous in nature, was not the result of premeditation and deliberation. . . . The record establishes that the anger, if not rage, that erupted in the first incident fed on itself during the period he spent alone in the locker room between incidents, continuing the fury of the first and connecting the two incidents and making them actually one."

Feerick did determine that, despite Sprewell's denials, he did land one or more punches in the second attack.

The NBA and the Warriors had based their punishments on Sprewell's second attack, calling it premeditated. Cohan, speaking at a press conference at the New Arena in Oakland late yesterday afternoon, seemed baffled by Feerick's ruling on the attack. "If that's not premeditated, I don't know what is," the owner said.

Cohan was surprised that in such a situation, the Warriors were not allowed to terminate Sprewell's contract -- fire him, in effect -- under the terms of the labor agreement between the players and the NBA.

"If you can't terminate a player's contract when you assault a person on two different occasions, you've got to ask the arbitrator, when the hell does that apply?" he asked.

The decision -- reached after nine days of testimony in Portland, Ore., and New York in January and February -- means the Warriors remain liable for the last two years of Sprewell's contract, worth $17.3 million from 1998 to 2000. Neither Cohan nor St. Jean went so far as to say Sprewell would never play for the team again; both indicated they will make a decision between now and July 1.

But it is clear that the Warriors will make every attempt to trade him. Two teams, the San Antonio Spurs and the Washington Wizards, have publicly said they would be interested in having Sprewell play for them. "If we do decide to trade him," St. Jean said, "we have a hell of an asset."

In a statement, the NBA said Sprewell would be reinstated "subject to his and the Players Association's providing assurances to the NBA that he will control and manage his temper." More than likely, that means Sprewell will have to undergo counseling before being allowed to return.

Carlesimo, after last night's victory over San Antonio at the New Arena in Oakland, said, "This decision was about right and wrong. . . . (It's) disappointing to me personally to be told that doing the right thing was not the right thing."

Sprewell could not be reached for comment.

"We are happy Latrell has his contract back," said his agent, Arn Tellem. "As playing basketball is one of the great joys in Latrell's life, we are disappointed that he will not be able to resume his NBA career until July 1."

NBA commissioner David Stern was unhappy with the decision, although in the decision Feerick did stand up for Stern's broad power to impose discipline. While noting that Sprewell's punishment will exceed all fines and punishments from the 1995-96 and 1996-97 seasons combined, Stern said, "The arbitrator is a very charitable man, and he made a charitable decision in respects to Mr. Sprewell in this decision.

"I think the fundamental point is whether you can strike your boss and still hold your job. The answer is that you cannot strike your boss and still hold your job -- unless you play in the NBA and are subject to arbitrator Feerick's decision," Stern said. The commissioner added that Feerick's ruling that the second attack was not premeditated, and was actually connected to the first attack, was "incomprehensible."

The union had hoped the suspension would be reduced, possibly to time served, and did not hold out much hope that the contract termination would be overturned. By having the suspension remain in place the rest of the season, and by having his contract reinstated, Sprewell lost out on a chance to join any team as a free agent for the rest of this season, or afterward.

Players association executive director Billy Hunter said the decision "is a victory for all NBA players, as well as for Latrell Sprewell. The decision reaffirmed the sanctity of guaranteed contracts in the NBA. Latrell finally got to have his day before a fair and neutral decisionmaker, who properly concluded that under principles of fairness and just cause, the action taken by the Warriors and the NBA was unreasonable and excessive."